Simple Balloon "Rocket"...

Quote from: neimoka on December 02, 2014, 11:09:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 02, 2014, 10:54:28 AM

Quote from: neimoka on December 02, 2014, 10:50:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 02, 2014, 10:43:27 AM

Quote from: neimoka on December 02, 2014, 10:40:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 02, 2014, 10:36:51 AM

Quote from: Jet Fission on December 02, 2014, 10:29:20 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 02, 2014, 10:24:46 AM

I've explained it very well. the fact you can't understand it is not my problem. All I can do is explain.
If you wanted to learn it, you would put more effort in that just going into immediate denial mode and back to gravity.

No. You haven't explained it well at all, considering nobody but you understands your explanations. Remember, this isn't about grasping denpressure, this is about grasping your English.
And like I've already stated, I'm not going into denial mode back to gravity, I want to learn about denpressure, and my question did not imply gravity.

So. One more time for us. Just one simple question:

Why is down so special?

Just forget it and carry on with your gravity, I've wasted enough time on you.

translation from sceptise: "I have no idea why but I know I'm 100% right and you've been brainwashed"

I can't help people with vision who refuse to see.

Our vision for seeing denpressure would be much improved if simple experiments didn't show denpressure to be made up crap. Your inability to give straight answers to simple practical questions adds up to that effect. If you're right, give the answers, we will experiment and see what's what for ourselves. You know, instead of just taking someone's word for it, I thought that's what you wanted people to do but apparently it doesn't apply when the person speaking happens to be you. You never even said what was wrong with Sokarul's vacuum experiment, you just whined how it wasn't done how you wanted and blah blah.

Ok, fair enough, I'll make a deal with you.

You describe your gravity to me and how you measure it, nice and simple so I can understand and I'll question it all so I can be clear on it and let's see if it makes more sense than mine. If it does, I'll drop denpressure.
Ok over to you.

First question. What kind of force is it and how does it know to pull or whatever it does?

I'm not interested in 'proving' gravity. Your discussion with me in this thread has been entirely about denpressure, I have not insisted gravity to be true or that I could experimentally prove it, while air pressure and displacement are things I can measure. I see that you have zero interest in what is real, clinging to your idea very own special idea must be so much more fun.

As for mass and inertia (which you say don't exist), here's a 5 year old level experiment: try moving an object along a low friction surface. Let's just say a curling stone on a curling track, damn slippery, you can first experiment how much more grippy it gets if you push the object down while moving it around; not by much, so change in reluctance to move due to change in friction proportional to weight is near irrelevant. More mass your object has, more force you need to get it moving along the surface. Push it hard enough to get it moving and see how far it goes and how forcefully it impacts another object. If possible repeat with a lighter, otherwise similar object. Weight is only acting in the down direction, so differences that you see are due to difference in mass. Happy experimenting.

And no I'm not interested in debating any possible flaws or merits of that method. I just wanted to directly measure effects of denpressure but if you don't give a shit about your own theory, well what can I do.

You absolute waste of time. Leave it at that.

Trying to measure denpressure certainly seems to be a waste of time. I guess it often is that way with things that don't exist.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on December 02, 2014, 10:16:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 02, 2014, 09:18:37 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on December 02, 2014, 09:13:40 AM

Quote

A helium molecule requires a lot of energy to be released into the atmosphere. It has to be forced into it by energy and expands into it them the atmosphere tries to crush it, like the balloon, exceopt it gets pushed up by that crush attempt, all the way to the top as it slows down due to the crush becoming weaker as the atmospheric pressure becomes more expanded with the very same type of molecules that were released in a similar way.

Do you ever read this shit back to yourself, out loud?  You should.

I've seen people on serious amounts of amphetamines talk like this - generally I don't take their pronouncements too seriously.

Simply yap yap yapping in your little moods is not explaining anything to me, crabby.

Why do you think I'm trying to explain anything to you?

I'm pointing out that your missives read like amphetamine fueled gibber-jabber.

Then stop jumping in

No.

Quote from: Conker on November 29, 2014, 07:02:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 29, 2014, 06:47:57 AM

Not going to quote all of your post, just using this as a marker to whom am I answering to.

You have quite a problem there. Potential energy depends on the existance of a force field, and in fact, its the result of an object changing position towards a higher potential zone in the field (an electron going towards a - charged plate gains potential energy, for example).Now there's two problems with denpressure here.

• What field is causing the ball to gain potential energy?
• In the case of the field to be denpressure's pressure field, then decreasing the field should cause the energy to decrease

Im just gonna quote myself until scepti answers this.

Scepti, dont understimate my stubbornness. You claim to be a zeteticist. Why are you ignoring evidence?

Quote from: sokarul on December 01, 2014, 02:12:15 PM

I have an idea to save trillions of dollars. How about all cargo ships ship their cargo in a vacuum. Take an oil tanker for instance. All the shipping company would have to do is fill up the tanks and then pull the best vacuum they can on the head space. Then poof, the oil is weightless. Imagine how much easier it would be to ship things. I will go ahead and collect my Nobel Prize now.

Tell them to take a raincheck on your nobel prize. You've just sunk your cargo ship. Not very wise, was it? 

Why? According to you 100,000 tons of oil should weigh -100,000 tons under a vacuum of 20 inches of mercury.  Just imagine how small of an engine you would need to move -100,000 tons of oil across the ocean.

Quote from: sokarul on November 30, 2014, 09:15:53 AM

Here is a picture of a water molecule. See how the angle and distance between atoms is listed? They don't change much. There is no expanding. You need to understand this. 

You need to undrstand that putting something like that up is pointless.

I know simple science is above your head.

No. You can't even grasp the concept so I'm not going to start with calculations.

Scepti, have you ever considered the possibility that some of us feel that denpressure is a concept that would be a lot easier to grasp if we were able to do a few calculations and test them with experiments?  Or are you afraid that denpressure won't be able to stand up to some real world testing?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 02, 2014, 07:41:21 AM

No. You can't even grasp the concept so I'm not going to start with calculations.

Scepti, have you ever considered the possibility that some of us feel that denpressure is a concept that would be a lot easier to grasp if we were able to do a few calculations and test them with experiments?  Or are you afraid that denpressure won't be able to stand up to some real world testing?

He is also, for some reason, avoiding challenges to his hypothesis, something quite unscientific. To be honest, I wouldnt care if he couldnt elaborate an extensive analysis, the ability to answer challenges should be mostly sufficient for the informal standard of a forum

I apologise in advance for causing anybody any unnecessary synaptic dysfunction, or possibly uncontrollable fits of laughter likely to cause a myocardial infarction, but as I was responsible for starting this ultimately deplorable thread, I though that this list of sceptimatic's highly articulate [sic] offerings for today alone warranted it.  And bear in mind that these examples are just a fraction of the total amount of absolute bullshit he's posted so far today...


•  The 3 identical sized objects all have different density. This means their ability to displace atmospheric pressure is different.
•  No it's just mainstream science silliness.
•  Tell them to take a rain-check on your Nobel prize. You've just sunk your cargo ship. Not very wise, was it?
•  As soon as you put your questions to me without acting like a prick, let me know and I'll answer.
 
•  I use it to highlight what I'm saying and hope logic kicks in with people to see it that way.
•  No. You can't even grasp the concept so I'm not going to start with calculations.
•  You are never going to understand what I'm saying. Why?...because you simply can't get this crap gravity out of your head to attempt to do so.
•  Get your kitchen scales out and weigh an object. Any will do. Denpressure. That's it.

•  Wherever you put that car, it is in the pressure it is in and will displace the atmosphere it is in.
•  Simply yap yap yapping in your little moods is not explaining anything to me.
•  I've explained it very well. the fact you can't understand it is not my problem.
•  You need to understand that putting something like that up is pointless.

•  If you wanted to learn it, you would put more effort in that just going into immediate denial mode and back to gravity.
•  So in simple terms how do they measure gravity.
•  Then stop jumping in like a little kid and yapping.
•  Just accept that you can't take basics on-board and prefer star trek like bullshit to appease your mind.

•  Just forget it and carry on with your gravity, I've wasted enough time on you.
•  Let's see your explanations for gravity and see if it makes any sense.
•  I can't help people with vision who refuse to see.
•  It's a topic all about gravity, so all of you are experts on it, so I'd love the full explanations that I can understand.

I tender this sort of absurd rubbish as incontrovertible proof that sceptimatic has not the slightest knowledge of scientific principles—at even a basic level required to graduate from high school.  The single fact that he's unable to comprehend even the elemental science behind the simple balloon "rocket" is sufficient to affirm my opinion.

So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?

So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?

A big one.

So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?

I like your optimism sokarul.   Although sceptimatic has thirteen academic qualifications, there's absolutely zero likelihood of him ever being able to work out this sort of mechanics problem.  Now the going's getting tougher, you won't see him posting in this thread again.  This intellectual cowardice is typical of liars like this guy, who can't ultimately back up the bullshit they spew, and have to make an embarrassing departure from the debate.

sceptimatic wouldn't even be able to work out the force necessary to move his dick, although a pair of tweezers would probably help.   

Quote from: sokarul on December 05, 2014, 04:39:27 AM

So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?

A big one.

Ouch... sceptimatic just made a liar out of me by posting what he considered a detailed, technically relevant response.  Although I was right in claiming that he couldn't answer your question, and then tried to shrug it off with one of his typically childish comments.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2014, 04:47:00 AM

Quote from: sokarul on December 05, 2014, 04:39:27 AM

So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?

A big one.

Ouch... sceptimatic just made a liar out of me by posting what he considered a detailed, technically relevant response.  Although I was right in claiming that he couldn't answer your question, and then tried to shrug it off with one of his typically childish comments.

I didn't think he would.

Quote from: sokarul on December 05, 2014, 04:39:27 AM

So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?

A big one.

i suppose you are right. I would have guessed a little one would be fine, but I'm now thinking a big engine is required to keep the ship with it's -100,000 tons of oil from floating away.

Quote from: sokarul on December 05, 2014, 04:39:27 AM

So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?

A big one.

Scepti, would you care to elaborate on that?  Of course you would need a big engine, the question was how big.  You are expected to give a thrust value along with simple math to prove it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2014, 04:47:00 AM

Quote from: sokarul on December 05, 2014, 04:39:27 AM

So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?

A big one.

Scepti, would you care to elaborate on that?  Of course you would need a big engine, the question was how big.  You are expected to give a thrust value along with simple math to prove it.

What I'm expected to do by you and your cronies is not what I'm going to do. The reason?
The reason is simple. You people won't or can't grasp the basics so adding calculations into what I'm saying is neither use nor ornament.

Stick to your unknown gravity that no science boffin can figure out. It's much easier because you don't have to explain nothing when you're backed by mainstream mass science of mass attracts mass...so there.

I can and have explained what the truth is and you are scared of it.

What I'm expected to do by you and your cronies is not what I'm going to do. The reason?
The reason is simple. You people won't or can't grasp the basics so adding calculations into what I'm saying is neither use nor ornament.

Stick to your unknown gravity that no science boffin can figure out. It's much easier because you don't have to explain nothing when you're backed by mainstream mass science of mass attracts mass...so there.

I can and have explained what the truth is and you are scared of it.

Major LULZ..... whenever poor old sceptimatic is backed into a corner and asked for a few simple calculations to support his claims, he invariably resorts to quaint little homilies about logic and ethics, and how fearful we all of his intellectual superiority etc.  This sort of stuff keeps me laughing for hours, plus it's free.  And then he stamps his dainty little foot..... so there!

As I think about it, I've not once seen any mathematical formulae posted by sceptimatic—despite his thousands of comments on these forums.  I'm guessing he doesn't have any physics or mathematical abilities whatsoever, as he can't even define the units of measure for his pet "denpressure" hypothesis LOL.

The fact that he can't grasp the mechanics of the balloon "rocket" kinda reinforces this point.   

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 09, 2014, 07:07:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2014, 04:47:00 AM

Quote from: sokarul on December 05, 2014, 04:39:27 AM

So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?

A big one.

Scepti, would you care to elaborate on that?  Of course you would need a big engine, the question was how big.  You are expected to give a thrust value along with simple math to prove it.

What I'm expected to do by you and your cronies is not what I'm going to do. The reason?
The reason is simple. You people won't or can't grasp the basics so adding calculations into what I'm saying is neither use nor ornament.

Stick to your unknown gravity that no science boffin can figure out. It's much easier because you don't have to explain nothing when you're backed by mainstream mass science of mass attracts mass...so there.

I can and have explained what the truth is and you are scared of it.

Oh, so we are the ones who can't grasp math.  I have never seen any math in any of your posts, and we use math all the time to prove that the Eartg is round.  How about you give math a go, unless math is a government conspiracy. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2014, 02:26:03 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 09, 2014, 07:07:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2014, 04:47:00 AM

Quote from: sokarul on December 05, 2014, 04:39:27 AM

So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?

A big one.

Scepti, would you care to elaborate on that?  Of course you would need a big engine, the question was how big.  You are expected to give a thrust value along with simple math to prove it.

What I'm expected to do by you and your cronies is not what I'm going to do. The reason?
The reason is simple. You people won't or can't grasp the basics so adding calculations into what I'm saying is neither use nor ornament.

Stick to your unknown gravity that no science boffin can figure out. It's much easier because you don't have to explain nothing when you're backed by mainstream mass science of mass attracts mass...so there.

I can and have explained what the truth is and you are scared of it.

Oh, so we are the ones who can't grasp math.  I have never seen any math in any of your posts, and we use math all the time to prove that the Eartg is round.  How about you give math a go, unless math is a government conspiracy. 

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.

You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.

I think this statement gets my award for the most idiotic post of the day LOL.

... and the larfs just keep on comin'   

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 10, 2014, 08:32:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2014, 02:26:03 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on December 09, 2014, 07:07:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2014, 04:47:00 AM

Quote from: sokarul on December 05, 2014, 04:39:27 AM

So sceptic, any idea of what size engine to use to move -100,000 tons of oil?

A big one.

Scepti, would you care to elaborate on that?  Of course you would need a big engine, the question was how big.  You are expected to give a thrust value along with simple math to prove it.

What I'm expected to do by you and your cronies is not what I'm going to do. The reason?
The reason is simple. You people won't or can't grasp the basics so adding calculations into what I'm saying is neither use nor ornament.

Stick to your unknown gravity that no science boffin can figure out. It's much easier because you don't have to explain nothing when you're backed by mainstream mass science of mass attracts mass...so there.

I can and have explained what the truth is and you are scared of it.

Oh, so we are the ones who can't grasp math.  I have never seen any math in any of your posts, and we use math all the time to prove that the Eartg is round.  How about you give math a go, unless math is a government conspiracy. 

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.

You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.

You don't need math to explain how a car engine works but you need math if you want to prove to someone that it works who thinks that the concept of engines was made up.  Most of us round earthers know what flat earth theory is, but we don't believe it.  Telling us more about FET won't persuade anybody if anything.  Math is considered concrete evidence by all round earthers, and if you can mathematically prove that FET is more correct then the standard model then I will become a flat earther.

What I'm expected to do by you and your cronies is not what I'm going to do. The reason?
The reason is simple. You people won't or can't grasp the basics so adding calculations into what I'm saying is neither use nor ornament.

It is no more necessary to understand the inner workings of gravity in order to use formulas to predict its behavior that it is to understand the inner workings of an internal combustion engine in order to drive a car.  So why don't you skip the explanation and give us the formulas so that we can test the properties of your denpressure?

Stick to your unknown gravity that no science boffin can figure out.

Denpressure must be at least as mysterious as gravity because no science boffin has figured out denpressure either.

It's much easier because you don't have to explain nothing when you're backed by mainstream mass science of mass attracts mass...so there.

Except that you have yet to explain how your denpressure air molecules know which way is down so that they can properly stack themselves.

I can and have explained what the truth is and you are scared of it.

If denpressure is so friendly and cuddly, then why are you scared to give us the formulas that describe its properties?

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.

You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.

Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.

Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.

Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2014, 09:43:16 AM

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.

You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.

Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.

Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.

Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.

Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 10, 2014, 02:46:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2014, 09:43:16 AM

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.

You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.

Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.

Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.

Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.

Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?

Just proving lemmiwinks point. It would be much more reasonable for you to say you don't have an equation or you don't know enough about math to provide one rather than this shady obfuscation you just trotted out.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 04:40:21 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 10, 2014, 02:46:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2014, 09:43:16 AM

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.

You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.

Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.

Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.

Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.

Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?

Just proving lemmiwinks point. It would be much more reasonable for you to say you don't have an equation or you don't know enough about math to provide one rather than this shady obfuscation you just trotted out.

Oh, ok. Give me a calculation for gravity and show me how you came to that as a definite, without using magic tricks.
Over to you, as yapping won't solve anything.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 10, 2014, 02:46:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2014, 09:43:16 AM

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.

You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.

Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.

Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.

Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.

Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?

mm that smell.. must be cop-out... what would be the point anyway? Why would you need to know these "magician maths"? I'm almost pretty sure there is no math involved in performing that trick.

You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.

You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.

Equations bring concrete evidence. If you  have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 11, 2014, 04:40:21 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on December 10, 2014, 02:46:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 10, 2014, 09:43:16 AM

I don't need to give maths a go to explain something.
Do I need maths to explain why a car engine works?...the answer is no, unless I have to explain why it gives out a certain horsepower, etc.

You people like to work with maths to try and prove something and you prove nothing where explanations are concerned with you crap space adventures.

Uh, as already said, math is concrete and undeniable. If you give us an equation that explains denpressure, and with that equation we can continuously come up with numbers that are bared out in the real world then we can say denpressure has a chance of being real.

Even if we dont know exactly what it is, like gravity, we do have an equation that with 100% accuracy can predict gravitys effects.

Honestly the fact that we can never pin a FE'er down to any equation says a lot about your "theories" validity.

Ok, I'll accept this challenge but first I need to ask you what the calculations are for a magician pulling a medium sized rabbit out of a clearly empty top hat.
Sort them out and how you came to the answer, then I'll start giving out calculations. How's about that?

mm that smell.. must be cop-out... what would be the point anyway? Why would you need to know these "magician maths"? I'm almost pretty sure there is no math involved in performing that trick.

It looks like the cop out is with you people. You can't give out equations for gravity because it doesn't exist, so how can you?
You don't know what it is as a force so how can you calculate something that isn't a force?

If you think you can and without trying to slither out of it; explain how you calculate gravity in real time and with what and how it works to get the claculations you say is a constant.
Over to you.
Remember, don't come out with magical bullshit. Let people see how it's done.

Quote from: hoppy on December 11, 2014, 05:12:15 AM

You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.

Equations bring concrete evidence. If you  have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.

Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.

Quote from: Göebbels on December 11, 2014, 05:15:56 AM

Quote from: hoppy on December 11, 2014, 05:12:15 AM

You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.

Equations bring concrete evidence. If you  have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.

Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.

Easily available, please give any links you disagree with.